Dennett's predecessor brings it all together...

Zero

You showed physical evidence, quoted a study published in a scientific journal? Is there a link that I missed?

Fliption

What hypnagogue is telling you Zero is that there is no reductive explanation for consciousness. Have you "quoted a study published in a scientific journal that accomplishes this?" Is there a link that I missed?

hypnagogue

You want physical evidence for a non-physical phenomenon?

The evidence for its being non-physical is precisely that it cannot be detected objectively. And yet, we know it exists.

Zero

Darn it, you had me all excited...[:(]

BTW, I don't want to be rude, gosh no I don't, trust me if I did you would know it...anyhoo! The evidence for something non-physical existing is that it doesn't exist, but it does? Sorry, I just can't contain that level of illogic in my head, not the same week I watched 'Being John Malkovich'. As Mentat has stated repeatedly, if you accept the perfectly logical idea that "subjective experience" is a linguistic shorthand for the incredibly complex interactions between the nervous system, sensory organs, and the world at large, there is no need to add an unproven and unprovable entity.

In other words, experience is a function of brain function, nothing more or less, and there is no reason to assume otherwise.

Fliption

Where are the scientific journals and links that reductively explain how this is the case? I can't wait until they figure out how to explain colors to a blind man.

Les Sleeth

Your statement "non-physical is nonsense, because if it is non-physical, it doesn't interact with the physical world" assumes your conclusion. You do not know if that is true or not.

Again your conclusion is assumed. You do not know if experiences are solely a function of brain activity. How can you know, using purely physical-detecting research techniques, if brain function might be limited to contributing to some non-physical experiential property of consciousness?

Further, the common argument taht there is "no evidence" is to ignore those who claim they do experience something non-physical. That may not be proof, but it is evidence. In light of such experiential reports, it could be that you and other physicalists lack the consciousness skills needed to experience the non-physical (personally I suspect that is exactly what the problem is; that is, it is physicalists fetish with physical reality that blinds them to the more subtle experience of the non-physical).

In any case, because you do not experience anything non-physical (or recognize the experience) doesn't mean you can assume there is no non-physical. Your statements should accordingly be, "I am not aware of anything non-physical." One cannot extend one's personal lack of experience to be proof of a lack in objective reality.

Zero

The heck are you talking about? Explaining colors to a blind man is a purely mechanistic problem, again not requiring some magical, mysictal, or emotional explanation to cheapen reality. The reason you can't explain color to the blindman is because of hardware and programming differences. Its the same reason why I can't get a camera to play music, or hook a Mac up to a PC without serious hassles.

Zero

Getting deep into the pseudomystical gunk now, aren't we? Anecdote isn't evidence, "special abilities and knowledge' is code word for "you gotta get brainwashed to believe it", and you cannot extend your lack of satisfaction with materialism so far as to make unfounded assumptions.

Fliption

I'm asking you to show where science has explained consciousness reductively. This was your claim of certainty and I'm asking you to show me where. Where are my articles? I'm so excited!

Fliption

Zero, I see some poor behavior going on in the General Discussion forum. You might want to go on back over there and straighten it out. I'm glad they got you in charge of such an important discussion area. Hope you get that worked out.

Zero

Frankly, I don't see the need to. I count it as a flaw, but not a fatal one.

Zero

Mostly, it seems to be a flaw in my credit...

Fliption

But this has been Hypnagogue's main point in all these threads. There is no reductive explanation of consciousness because it isn't possible. So if you don't feel the need to show that there is then why are you posting in this thread?

Fliption

It's spelled "Credibility"

Zero

Ha! Who says it isn't possible? I just said I didn't come up with it, and that's all I'm saying. [:D]

Zero

Ad hominem, I presume? Pleased to meet you.


Actually, the links I've found have been "pay per view"...you have to buy the research notes, and I'm sorely lacking in plastic fundage.[:D]

Fliption

Yes, I know this. But this thread is about why it isn't possible to be reductively explained. If you don't have any philsophically worthy comments to add to this discussion then why are you posting here? No one cares what you believe. The point of the thread is to discuss "why".